Caption contest:
MUSLIMS OUTRAGED
- again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/676311...

Good gracious, these comments go all over the place!

Dago,
Honestly, I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse.
The fact that the nations mentioned are not religious states is irrelevant to his point, which turns on their traditional predominate religiousity.
And he brought up the Catholic/Protestant distinction because the "Commandments" were issued by the Catholic Pontiff, and the countries Catholics disproportionately live in (i.e., "Catholic ccountries") are notable for their comparatively poor drivers. Accordingly, he found it mildly "funny or ironic" that the Holy See saw fit to address the problem, Honestly, I don't see a trace of bigotry or idiocy in his post. It did appear to be non-germane, however.
While not advisable, posting a non-germane comment is not a mortal sin and is hardly limited to idiots.

Driving habits are part of and related to culture, whereas the Great Schism and the Reformation, etc. were completely independent historical incidents, causing, possibly, an accidental relationship between religion (meaning Catholic versus Protestant) and driving.
Mr. Petrik:
If that were the case, then why the 'Protestant' distinction?
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
Also, the only way to make such a claim (among the many other considerations): (1) there actually exists 'Protestant' countries out there (2) one has experienced driving in a representative sample of both Protestant and Non-Protestant countries

And let me further clarify....
At one time all of Europe was Catholic. If history had not intervened my hunch is that today's driving habits would still be similarly disparate, and that Frank agrees with that. Driving habits are part of and related to culture, whereas the Great Schism and the Reformation, etc. were completely independent historical incidents, causing, possibly, an accidental relationship between religion (meaning Catholic versus Protestant) and driving. Frank found this to be amusing, that's all.

"For one, isn't he, here, asserting that there is actually a causal relationship between Protestantism and the 'less wild' and 'orderly' driving?"
Not at all. He is making an observation that he finds amusing, nothing more. I think you are taking unfair inferential liberties.

I did observe while overseas that driving habits differ wildly among cultures. From what I could tell from my brief time in the Middle East, traffic lights are considered to be only for suckers.

Anon,
I think you are over-reacting. One does not have to rely on a four year study paid by a federal grant to observe that driving habits differ somewhat by nation. And my own experience somewhat corroborates Franks. Now perhaps our experiences were aberrant, but even if so that would not make us bigots, or even the statements bigoted.
And your attempt at distinguishing between a Catholic state and a nation populated predominately by Catholics is irrelevant.
Finally, I don't think Frank can fairly be read as asserting that bad driving habits bear a causal relationship with Catholicism, he just found the presumably accidental association amusing.
Your harsh name-calling was completely uncalled for. You owe Frank an apology.

Response to 4:59:49 anon:
You're wrong!
Most countries are Buddhist!
Because they are young and foolish.

I thought that the so called Vatican's 10 Commandments about driving were morally right BUT funny AND the drivers of Catholic countries definetely violate the "commandments" about gestures, wild driving, swearing etc.
Have you ever driven in Rome?
or Mexico City?
Cultural issues? at least kind of funny or ironic.
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.

There seems to be a bit of a mudslining fight in respect to Our Lord's person:
1 person (2nd Person of the Holy Trinity)
2 natures (His created human and uncreated Divine)
2 wills (His created human and His uncreated Divine, yet perfectly united and the the same, while being two separate.)

But, back on topic...
The Times probably wanted to caption the photo "Pope rewards minion Bush for punishing gays and restricting abortion rights".
Or -
"Pope Benedict XVI and President Bush - both white men - discuss their plan for a worldwide theocracy".

Don't waste your breath engaging the "arguments" of a gnostic troll. He/she is probably not very convinced that anything is "true", save for the unreflective assumption that the Church is always wrong. It's all word games meant to distract, rather than real argument.
The thing that undoes their philosophy (if one could call it that) is that - sorry - there are no secrets in the Kingdom of God. Jesus is no mere enlightened master... He is enlightenment itself. Light from Light, True God from True God. He brought all Truth out in the fresh air and sunlight.
Of course, it may be hard for some to accept that the Secrets of the Universe have been revealed to the Simple Folk... that Jesus gave away the whole plot. What fun is it if the butcher and trash man can understand it? What are we Brights supposed to do to keep our colossal intellects occupied? How can we possibly keep the Great Unwashed out of our club if Jesus has taken the locks off the doors?
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." Men loved the shadows because they had secrets to protect and that needs darkness.
God is very plain-spoken, when it comes to it. He has to be, we humans being somewhat dimwitted creatures. "Light has come into the world..." there's no need to go looking for enlightenment here or there in some secret place. Gnostics imagine they have found the sun under a rock or in a cave, when it is blazing noon outside.
Come outside, guys. You're looking awfully pale and thin. You could use some Sun.

*puts five dollars on him be a college kid who thinks he's showing those stupid religious sheep a thing or two*

"So, if God doesn't want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?"
Temporally is not eternal.
You're right -- and you also haven't explain how a God who has no desire that any die eternally could have a desire that any die temporally.
Your presumption is "two or more wills" as if we're talking about separate wills. Jesus's will is not separate from God's anymore than Jesus is separate from God.
Depends on what you mean by "separate." Jesus has two wills. They really are two wills, not one will that looks like two wills. Thus, in that sense, they are separate. But the two wills are hypostatically united. In that sense, they are not "separate."
Jesus, even with his human nature, never ceased being God. Jesus always did God's will. Jesus's will is God's will.
Yes, we agree on that, as far as it goes. But Jesus' human will is not Jesus' divine will, even though His human will is in agreement with His divine will (which is God's will -- hence "divine").
Jesus as human and Jesus as divine share the One will. Jesus was not divided against himself.
No, He is not divided against Himself, but no, Jesus as human and Jesus as divine do not share the one will. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in the Incarnation. Jesus does not share one will with God -- He is True Man, so He has a human will, and He is True God, so He also has a divine will.
They're not just in agreement. They are One. They are not separate. Whatever Jesus did was not by some separate will of his own.
Then Jesus was not True Man.
As he said, "The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."
He doesn't speak and act on his own, but He, a man, does speak and act. Therefore He is a man in perfect agreement with and obedience to His Father.
Your interpretation is not greater than your understanding.
True, but by God's grace, my understanding of these things is greater than your understanding of them.
"we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered."
It's all part of God's plan. Even evil serves good. I rejoice in that.
Of course. So that means it's okay to commit sin, right? And we shouldn't do anything to fight evil and injustice in the world, right? Even more, let us do evil, that good may come of it, right?
so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?
"Rejoice always." What part of "always" don't you understand?
So you are truly thankful for babies being murdered? If someone were to come into your home and murder your own children, you would thank God that your children had been murdered?
Matthew, you're a classic example of the reason non-Catholics really shouldn't dabble in the Church's sacred books as if they knew what our sacred books mean.

he thinks it's more like one that looks like three.
Is that what you think? LOL

*light dawns* Ah! This guy doesn't actually believe in three in one and one in three-- he thinks it's more like one that looks like three.
The Three who are also One is one of the famous Mysteries, aye?
Hey, Mat? You're still not really believable.

So, if God doesn't want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?
Temporally is not eternal.
When two or more wills are perfectly aligned, it doesn't follow that doesn't mean only one of those wills is operative.
Your presumption is "two or more wills" as if we're talking about separate wills. Jesus's will is not separate from God's anymore than Jesus is separate from God. Jesus, even with his human nature, never ceased being God. Jesus always did God's will. Jesus's will is God's will.
This text isn't referring to Jesus' human nature and will, but to His divine nature and will. It speaks of the oneness of the Person of the Son with the Person of the Father.
Jesus as human and Jesus as divine share the One will. Jesus was not divided against himself.
the Christian doctrine is that His freedom is in exercising His human will and His divine will in such a way that His human will is always in agreement with His divine will.
They're not just in agreement. They are One. They are not separate. Whatever Jesus did was not by some separate will of his own. As he said, "The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."
If it amuses you to see Jesus's human will as separate from God's will, then that is your amusement.
Hey, all I can go by is what you give me, and you're not exactly the picture of clarity and rationality, Matthew
As interpreted by you. Your interpretation is not greater than your understanding.
we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered.
It's all part of God's plan. Even evil serves good. I rejoice in that.
so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?
"Rejoice always." What part of "always" don't you understand?

Enemies?
.... *cues the twilight zone music*

If I wanted to make the point that I'm NOT seeking to exercise some alleged separate will for myself, I might say exactly what Jesus said.
And if I were God Incarnate, with two natures, one divine and one human, with two wills, one divine and one human, I would say exactly what Jesus said.
But to use your logic, "if Jesus and the Father are One, then how come Jesus is praying to the Father?"
Because Jesus is True Man AND True God, and the proper attitude of man to God is prayerful obedience. If Jesus were only God but not simultaneously Man, then He would not prayer to the Father, but He is God Incarnate, so He prays -- and prays perfectly, as no other human could possibly pray.
What "seems" to you is your interpretation. I rejoice no matter. In that way, "everything is OK" with me (which is what I was posting to), regardless of any distinction you may draw as to "directly willed by God" or whatever else. Whether an abortion clinic is built or shutdown, whether someone dies by God or man or Satan or what have you, I rejoice.
Hey, all I can go by is what you give me, and you're not exactly the picture of clarity and rationality, Matthew.
Anyway, I suspect you may need to learn the difference between indifferent resignation and the Christian joy that is to be there in all circumstances. That is to say, we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered. But in your hyper-Calvinistic, deterministic point of view, we ought to be rejoicing BECAUSE of the building of an abortion clinic and BECAUSE babies are being murdered -- since those things are God's will, those sins must in some mysterious way bring glory to Him, so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?

To "perish" is not the same as being put to death in the world.
You're right, it's not the same -- it's worse. So, if God doesn't want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?
"You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you BECAUSE OF ME.
You seem to think this verse says Christians are hated because Jesus will directly cause men to hate them, whereas it only says Christians will be hated because they have faith in Christ. "All men will hate you FOR MY SAKE."
Jesus could only exercise One will, whether you see it as however many wills.
You are utterly mistaken and are not reasoning correctly. When two or more wills are perfectly aligned, it doesn't follow that doesn't mean only one of those wills is operative.
"The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
This text isn't referring to Jesus' human nature and will, but to His divine nature and will. It speaks of the oneness of the Person of the Son with the Person of the Father. They both equally share the one divine will, but they do it in a way that there is no confusion of Persons: each Person of the Godhead invidually possesses the one divine will, but it does not divide the Godhead at all.
His freedom (as in Jesus's free will) is in not exercising any other will.
No, the Christian doctrine is that His freedom is in exercising His human will and His divine will in such a way that His human will is always in agreement with His divine will.
"Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will."
Yes, that's exactly what I mean: He has two wills, His human will and the divine will, which is also the Father's will. Unless you don't believe that Jesus is God Incarnate?

Typical gnostic gobbledeygook...
Matthew is Mark is Mary... remember? How tiresome.
Hey, "Matthew"... I'm building a random gnostic phrase generator that will save you the trouble of posting. It's going well, but occasionally some word combinations still seem to make some logical sense, so obviously there are bugs yet to be worked out. It really won't count as truly gnostic until every phrase is completely empty of any possibility of real meaning.

If there was only one will, then how come Jesus distinguished between His will and His Father's will?
If I wanted to make the point that I'm NOT seeking to exercise some alleged separate will for myself, I might say exactly what Jesus said. But to use your logic, "if Jesus and the Father are One, then how come Jesus is praying to the Father?"
Of course, Matthew is also someone who doesn't seem to read very well. St. Paul said it is the will of God that we give thanks in all circumstances, not that all circumstances are directly willed by God.
What "seems" to you is your interpretation. I rejoice no matter. In that way, "everything is OK" with me (which is what I was posting to), regardless of any distinction you may draw as to "directly willed by God" or whatever else. Whether an abortion clinic is built or shutdown, whether someone dies by God or man or Satan or what have you, I rejoice.

Monothelite
*resists a Star Trek joke*

Jesus's will is the Father's will is God's will and never ceased to be God's will. That's One will, even if counting it as however many amuses you.
If there was only one will, then how come Jesus distinguished between His will and His Father's will? As you yourself quote:
"Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will."
So which is it, Matthew? Do you agree with Jesus that there are two wills, or would you rather patronise your Savior and say to Him, "That's one will, even if counting it as however many amuses you."
a troll that insists that everything is OK
Matthew is much more troubling that just an internet troll. He's a Monothelite.
In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus."
Of course, Matthew is also someone who doesn't seem to read very well. St. Paul said it is the will of God that we give thanks in all circumstances, not that all circumstances are directly willed by God.

He has TWO NATURES in his person, TWO INTELLECTS and TWO WILLS... His human will was perfectly aligned and in harmony with the will of the Father.
"I and the Father are One." Jesus's will is the Father's will is God's will and never ceased to be God's will. That's One will, even if counting it as however many amuses you.
The whole point of Gethsemane was that the choice was real
As real as God's choice. "Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will."
a troll that insists that everything is OK, because it's God's will.
"Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus."

Bush lead to the definition of prolife, which lead to the difference between killing innocents and criminals, which lead to a troll that insists that everything is OK, because it's God's will.

Now, how did we end up this far off topic, again?

Jesus indeed had two wills, one human and one divine. The thing is, His human will was perfectly aligned and in harmony with the will of the Father.
In this way He provides an example for us, as well as great hope that - relying on God's grace - we may bring our will perfectly into line with His.
It would be impossible on our own, but with God all things are possible.
The whole point of Gethsemane was that the choice was real. As real as sweat and blood.

Matthew,
Jordan Potter gave you a chance to leave gracefully and even provided you with a good bit of information for your benefit.
However, it seems you refuse to listen to reason.
For your information, Jesus had both a DIVINE and HUMAN nature. His divine nature has an intellect and will that is divine. His human nature has an intellect and will that is human.
Therefore, Christ is unique in that He has TWO NATURES in his person, TWO INTELLECTS and TWO WILLS.
It would be good for you to first LEARN about what Jordan Potter was trying to teach you rather than to ignorantly refute his arguments with such little understanding on what he was actually saying to you.
I, myself, don't know everything as regards Theology but I do try to make attempts at learning the basics, which is what I'd suggest for you to do -- learn the BASICS.

we know from Holy Scripture that "God is not willing that any should perish,"
To "perish" is not the same as being put to death in the world. "You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you BECAUSE OF ME. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."
Christians believe that Jesus has Two Natures, not one, and Two Wills, not one?
Jesus could only exercise One will, whether you see it as however many wills. "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing." His freedom (as in Jesus's free will) is in not exercising any other will.
"Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will."

Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." And, "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me."
That doesn't prove that Jesus lacks free will. That proves that Jesus and His Father are One.
You do know, I hope, that Christians believe that Jesus has Two Natures, not one, and Two Wills, not one?

Let's go back to what Matthew posted originally:
All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They're God's will.
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."
His prooftext, Matt. 10:29, apparently comes from the New King James Version or the New International Version, or some such translation which adds the word "will" to this text. In the original Greek, however, it merely says "apart from your Father" (well, the koine Greek equivalent of that, of course). It neither specifies "will" nor "knowledge." Versions that supply one of those words are not translating the text, but are inserting a possible interpretation of it. Based on the wider context of the teaching of Scripture and the historical faith of the Church, the proper interpretation is "knowledge," not "will."
Therefore, Matthew's prooftext does not support his contention that God directly wills the murder of unborn babies. Indeed, we know from Holy Scripture that "God is not willing that any should perish," that death is an enemy to be destroyed at the Last Judgment, that "God did not create death" (as it is taught in the Book of Wisdom), that God has no pleasure in the death of him who dies, as Ezekiel wrote. Matthew presumes to know the mind of God, and yet he offers a reading of God's mind that cannot be reconciled with the things He has Himself revealed to us.

If Jesus didn't have the choice, he wouldn't have said anything
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." And, "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me."

Well, we got a troll. Too bad he's not so very good at it.
Next time, brush up on scripture, and on actual theological connoations of it.
If Jesus didn't have the choice, he wouldn't have said anything. It would have simply happened. But he chose, and made it clear he was choosing. That's why he's such a great example.
As opposed to some poser on a web forum who seems to think we're all puppets of God. (any god that would have his puppets behave as humanity does is not one that I would like to have)

"The very hairs of your head are all numbered." Ask the one who has counted them. He will tell you.
Kewl!
He told me this weekend.
Hope you're ready!

Okay, tell me when would you like to meet your maker?
"The very hairs of your head are all numbered." Ask the one who has counted them. He will tell you.

And you still haven't replied to Esau's offer. *evil smile*
I have. "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

Okay, tell me when would you like to meet your maker? I shall make the necessary provisions.

that's Jesus *choosing* to follow the Father's will.
"Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will." That's Jesus not following his own will, but the Father's will.
And you still haven't replied to Esau's offer. *evil smile*
I have. "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

*sighs*
Matt 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them alls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted."
Once again, it's knowledge, not by the will of.
Oh, and that's Jesus *choosing* to follow the Father's will.
You mis-quoted scripture. Not the same.
And you still haven't replied to Esau's offer. *evil smile*

If your will is indeed His will, then you would be against abortion and not for it!
I'm not advocating anyone get an abortion any more than God is advocating abortion when Jesus said, "Fear not."

My will is His will.
If your will is indeed His will, then you would be against abortion and not for it!

Free will, heard of it? It's a nice little thing.
"My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
My will is His will.
Mat- "Even the devil can quote scripture." Although you did it badly.... Luke 12:6
You didn't even quote the same passage. I'm Matthew, not Luke.
Matt, you speak a variant of Calvinism, not orthodox Catholicism.
I quoted Scripture.

Matt, you speak a variant of Calvinism, not orthodox Catholicism.

Mat- "Even the devil can quote scripture."
Although you did it badly.... Luke 12:6 "Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have been counted." In context, it's pretty clear that the statement is about God's knowledge, not his direct cause of events.
Free will, heard of it? It's a nice little thing.

Oh brother.
This reminds me of Mark Shea's place.

It's the word and will of God.

All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They're God's will.
That's like justifying MURDER -- like saying all MURDERS are willful deaths, even natural murders. They're God's will!
I take it, if I kill you, Matthew, it would be okay then?

Mat, stop trolling.

All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They're God's will.
There's a difference between an act of God and the act of man.
In terms of an abortion caused by man, it's one that is an act of evil.